Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum:Deletion candidates

This is the place to list articles and discuss that should be deleted or restored. Discussions are sorted by date. A list of what's suggested for deletion can be found here Category:Lexicanum deletion candidates.

If you want to suggest that an article should be deleted, plase read the Deletion Rules. A list of deleted articles can be found under Deletion Log.

If you want to suggest that a deleted article should be restored please file it in under "Articles that should be restored" on this page.

Every suggestion has to be signed with ~~~~.

See Lexicanum:Deletion Candidates/Unresolved for other discussions on deletions

Deletion Candidates

I hereby nominate Atmospheric incinerator torpedo for deletion, due to no citations or other useful information other than;

"bursts in low planetary orbit and literally ignites all oxygen on a target planet" (which can be extrapolated from the name anyway)

Unless more canonized information can be found about the method and weaponry itself, I do not believe it should merit its own article. Mention as a method in Exterminatus should be enough.

Thanks, --Rye 01:16, 3 January 2009 (CET)

I disagree, the article now has a similar quantity of information to the other extermination methods. --RCgothic 12:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I nominate Orkamungus for deletion, as user who created page said he would "work" on it within the timeframe of 2 weeks. this transmission was in November. It's a bit of an eye sore really for an article to be unfinished for months.--Vindicta 21:50, 8 January 2009 (CET)

I disagree, the article is now up to an acceptable standard. --RCgothic 12:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hurricane-pattern heavy bolters - they aren't heavy bolters and we already have the correct article I think.--Jonru 10:22, 18 January 2009 (CET)

i agree, delete it

I agree, delete it. There is a correct article. --RCgothic 12:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

bah, nevermind, it was a redirect that went to demons instead of the plaguebearer page but I fixed it.

--Arkady 06:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)